I guess the shills have cycled back to the "Sessions is fail" talking point. If you truly think Sessions is failing, why are you hanging out in one of the only pro-Trump chan forums that believes in him?

Anybody that doesn't "trust Sessions" hasn't read Q's posts and isn't acknowledging the evidence we've been given. There are at least 4 investigations going on right now, into the Clinton Foundation, HRCs emails, U1, etc, plus 45k sealed indictments.

POTUS has to play his part, but did Sessions look like he's bothered by POTUS' criticism? No. Why? Because Sessions knows that POTUS knows what's really happening. It's like an inside joke between friends.

>>2675233

He also mentioned

>THERE ARE NO DEALS

In 520,

And

>NO DEALS

in 564, 786, 884, and 1005.

You're spreading misinformation. Daily, apparently.

I'll pick the one he said six times, more recently, esp. given that the first time he said it was around the first time he said "we listened", as if honoring anon's request.

I doubt you were here for that, or you would've recognized the context. You need to spend less time acting like a teacher and more time reading the damned posts.

>>2675375

Was a response to

>>2675311

Re:

>>2675330

Let me tell both of you what Q is referring to when he says "no deals":

Look at the difference between military court and federal court; there are two of them directly relevant to what Q has stated repeatedly, from early on:

1. The evidence is widely available for viewing (the choice to know will be yours)

2. You can't plead guilty–ie, no plea bargaining (no deals)

When these people get brought up on charges, there will be no deals.

Personally, I don't care if some desls are made for bit players. Remember also that a deal might be made to spare someone's family, while still giving someone a life sentence; continued benefits for spouses for instance. But when Q states that the options are life in prison, death, or running, yhat says it all for me.